For the record, not all people of color have grown up in the hood or have been called racial slurs to their faces on a regular basis. A URM with the most cushy life has still been disadvantaged compared to a white guy.

Like Chris Rock said at one of his concerts: "Not one white dude in here would even trade places with ME...and I'm rich! That's how good it is to be white in America."

White people who deny the existence of "white priviledge" are either evil barbarians or incredibly naive...gottabe one or the other.

This is possibly the dumbest arguement I've seen on here, and I've seen some winners. And, for the record, I'll gladly trade places with Chris Rock.

The point, though, is that in my hypo...it has nothing to do with the qualifications of the applicants. Simply because there are vast more whites in the applicant pool than Blacks, it makes the chances than a Black applicant is selecteed for admission exceedingly small. Thus, in order for a qualified Black applicant to have a reasonable shot to get into a particular school under a race-blind system, the Black applicant would have to post scores that would far exceed the median - simply to stand out. So in fact, a race-blind admissions system pretty much consolidates power among the majority group at elite colleges and universities. I'll leave others to debate the desirability of such a regime on a micro and macro level. But that's what it does.

And the reason I posted my inquiry to Lindbergh, not that he would be able to pick up on this, is that in my hypo all you have to do is replace Black with Asian and that's exactly what's happening to many qualified Asians today. They are being pushed out of schools that they're reasonably qualified to be in and they have to be much better than the median applicant in order to be able to secure a spot in a particular school.

Of course, every individual has an equal chance to be admitted under a race-blind system. So, again, I'm not saying whether it is bad or good. What I'm saying is that its pretty clear and intuitive why a qualified minority might not like race blind admissions.

There's a couple of things about what you said that just doesn't quite flow. Yes its true that in your scenario, since there are vastly more white applicants than black applicants, a race blind system would yield an all white class and the odds of a black person is exceedingly small. But what you conclude doesn't really follow. You state that the black person would have to have scores way above the median to have a reasonable shot. In reality, the black person has the same reasonable shot as everyone else. Just because the end result is that statistically, black people will not end up in the class doesn't mean that the black applicants faces a harsher admissions standards. There are simply more white applicants. If you mix in 49 white jelly beans with 1 black jelly bean and pick 7 at random, odds are high that you pick 7 white jelly beans, but from the perspective of the individual jelly beans, your odds are the same. You don't need to do more to stand out.

As for the comment about replacing black with asian, you can't necessarily do that because the reality of the situation is that there are fewer black applicants in proportion to the general population, hence a URM boost, where as there are more asian applicants in proportion to the general population, hence ORM.

For the record, not all people of color have grown up in the hood or have been called racial slurs to their faces on a regular basis. A URM with the most cushy life has still been disadvantaged compared to a white guy.

Like Chris Rock said at one of his concerts: "Not one white dude in here would even trade places with ME...and I'm rich! That's how good it is to be white in America."

White people who deny the existence of "white priviledge" are either evil barbarians or incredibly naive...gottabe one or the other.

This is possibly the dumbest arguement I've seen on here, and I've seen some winners. And, for the record, I'll gladly trade places with Chris Rock.

The quintessential flawed response: call an argument "flawed", or in this case, "dumb" and give no articulate reason for "why".

F-A-I-L!

For the record, if whites weren't denying white priviledge, they would not complain about AA, a system which benefits ethnic minorities far less than whites believe it does. So, my friend, are you denying that these widespread complaints are completely inconsistent with acknowledgement of white priviledge? If so, where's your proof?

And before you begin to engage me, let me warn you, no one is allowed to debate me without putting up evidence for what they say, because I inevitably begin doing the same. My strategy is to make strong statements that lure idiots like you into making mindless suppositions (like the one you just made), then query you into more stupidity (like I just did). Then I'll lower bombs on you, so be prepared.

No...I speak facts. The fact is, whites are saying and doing certain things, esp. on LSD. That does not fall within the context of the "talking about people" that the saying addresses. I'm not talking about individuals (spreading gossip or attacking people without cause).

Oh...it's starting now...good...good. Bring it on. I can handle 20 of you, like the people on TLS have learned all-too-painfully. If you debate me, you'd better have books beside you, and you'd better know your history.

Seriously, someone needs to fill me in on this Great White Privilege thing! I must not be well-informed because, silly me, I've been working my ass off for the last 12 years to get to where I am! Had I known that everything would just be handed to me because I'm white, well, I might have done it all differently. Forget working 60 hours a week and going to school full-time, sleeping 3 hours a night to maintain a high GPA, and doing hours of homework. Why didn't you guys tell me that success would just be handed to me because I'm white? Damn!

No...I speak facts. The fact is, whites are saying and doing certain things, esp. on LDS. That does not fall within the context of the "talking about people" that the saying addresses. I'm not talking about individuals (spreading gossip or attacking people without cause).

Oh...it's starting now...good...good. Bring it on. I can handle 20 of you, like the people on TLS have learned all-too-painfully. If you debate me, you'd better have books beside you, and you'd better know your history.

Bring it on. All of you who dare.

it seems apparent that regardless of the outcome, you will conclude that you've won the argument.

also please note, i haven't disagreed with you about anything in this thread. i'm just making an observation about what will probably happen.

Well, you certainly have a right to disagree. This is America, and I would never begrudge you that right. There's nothing personal with me or anyone else. If we disagree, let's do it in a civil manner. I have posed my first question below. I would appreciate a response from someone...AA opponent or not. Let's discuss this thing. This is a marketplace of ideas, and we all need it. Let's educate each other and take what we learn and make things better.

So...answer my question. Do you agree that there is an inconsistency between acknowledging the existence of white priveledge and complaining about AA?

My contention: for better or worse, AA has amounted to a form of reparations...a poor one, at that, because it has not helped its target demographic(s). Additionally, I have posited that even an average white man who denies white priviledge would not trade places with a rich Black man.

No...I speak facts. The fact is, whites are saying and doing certain things, esp. on LDS. That does not fall within the context of the "talking about people" that the saying addresses. I'm not talking about individuals (spreading gossip or attacking people without cause).

Oh...it's starting now...good...good. Bring it on. I can handle 20 of you, like the people on TLS have learned all-too-painfully. If you debate me, you'd better have books beside you, and you'd better know your history.

Bring it on. All of you who dare.

it seems apparent that regardless of the outcome, you will conclude that you've won the argument.

also please note, i haven't disagreed with you about anything in this thread. i'm just making an observation about what will probably happen.

Me fair lady/esteemed gentleman-comrad, a gentleman who concedes defeat lives to fight in 'morrow. I do hope I am soundly beaten, for I will have grown because of it.